Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

Moot said:

Hi MMC

Suppose the attack was the protest? Since none of the attackers have been arrested then how do they know they weren't motivated by the protests in Cairo to attack the compound and the CIA annex in Benghazi?

Yes, there were previous attacks in Benghazi and each of those attacks were from different groups with different motivations. For instance, the attack on June 8, 2012 was carried out by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libyain in protest of Tunisian artists against Islam. Other attacks were by other groups in retaliation for drone assassinations. The point is they were different groups with different motivations attacking different sites all over Benghazi.

The attack on 9/11 happened on the same day as the protest in Cairo and it was being broadcast all over the Middle East. Gregory Hicks was watching it on TV when Stevens called him to tell him that the compound was under attack. I find it very difficult to believe that the Islamic extremists and militant factions in Benghazi weren't watching it as well.

The FBI isn't having much luck with it's investigation. The Libyan government is reluctant to help and witnesses on the street are reluctant to talk to the FBI for fear of retaliation. Imo, the Libyan president was a little too quick to come out and say it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the Cairo protests against the video. Obviously it was an "act of terror" but how would he know who or what the motivation was?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/w...pers-benghazi-assault-investigation.html?_r=0

ADMIRAL MULLEN who co-authored the ARB report says there were gaps in intelligence and there wasn't any warning of the attack. That would suggest it could have been a spontaneous act of terror....

"...We found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the September 11th attacks, but there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known. In this context, increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in eastern Libya...."
Briefing on the Accountability Review Board Report

The CIA doesn't seem to have any solid answers for motivation either. All they can surmise is that the attack was carried out by Islamic extremists and a few of the perps may have had sympathetic ties to Al Qaeda. In other words, they don't know who or what the actual motivation for the attack was.

So whose to say it wasn't both...an act of terror in protest of the video AND carried out by terrorists?

Click to expand...

Because, we have Petraeus saying that he knew it was an Planned attack all along. That the CIA knew it was a Planned by Terrorists in the first place.

Also those that attacked the Consulate the first two times are the same ones that went after the Brit's Ambassador in Libya.....as well as attacked the Red Cross Offices. Here is another clue.....the second time when they attacked the Consulate they blew a hole thru the Iron gates that use to be close off the entrance to the Embassy. They also left a Note on paper saying they would be back.

BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'

Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

Gen Petraeus told the lawmakers that references to terror groups were removed from the final version of the administration's "talking points" on Benghazi, although he was not sure which federal agency deleted it.....snip~

Alright Moot.....here is what I got. Now here is an interesting point, they blew a hole in the Iron gates. We in return took the Iron Gates Down. Do you think there is an actual excuse by Hillary and her team, for not putting up a new set of iron gates? Just to at least be able to close off the Entrance.

Also Hicks and Nordstrom confirm that there was no protest or demonstration out in front of the Consulate. Now while the attack took place......that is not to say that some in Libya may have decided to join in.

Also we know Stevens was out on the street an Hour before the attack with the Turks Envoy.
We also were warned by the Libyans 3 days ahead of time that they thought Benghazi was to dangerous to conduct any kind of business.

Utility Man said:

Just pointing out that the Republican there says "Absolutely"(affirmative)when asked whether it was true that he voted to cut embassy security.

Sorry, cant say much about the debunking you mention, just what I heard from the horses mouth there.

Click to expand...

Well, you were in the other thread and bringing up this very subject about Embassy Funding. Wherein the Links from Fact Check.Org, Politi-Fact and the UK Daily Mail were put up and shown that they debunked that issue.

Also he told the truth as Any on the Appropriations Bill that came out of the House had voted to Cut Embassy Security. Which did you think that let the Democrats off the Hook? Considering they Voted to Cut the Embassy Security as well. Also did you want to Count what the Fact Checkers said about Obama having partial Blame due to his Budget and due to the very fact.....that he Signed the Bill that was Cutting Embassy Security. Do you think he read the Bill before he signed it or just did the Photo OP for signing?

CNN.....
The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.....snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/

Fact Check.Org......
Veep Debate Violations

Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Biden’s Libya Claims

Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget $300 million below what we asked for.” That’s an exaggeration. The fiscal year 2012 funding was $264 million less than the administration had requested, and the funding isn’t only for security. It covers construction and maintenance as well.

Biden: Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one.

The Obama administration requested $1.801 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to The Hill newspaper. And House Republicans came back with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled House agreed to increase funding to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

Biden also claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of security concerns among U.S. officials in Libya before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The vice president said: “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”

We can’t say whether requests for more security — which were denied — reached the top. But American officials who worked in Libya over the summer placed the blame on a deputy assistant secretary of state — not top administration officials — when testifying before Congress this week.

Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, said: “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources.”

Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team, testified: ”We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”

They placed the blame squarely on Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, according to Foreign Policy magazine.....snip~

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

Well, there it is in Black and White and up in the 4th thread about the Embassy Security Argument. Like I said.....Try again!

Oh BTW.....How did you like that Part with Biden On National Television Stating that "WE".....meaning Team Obama. Were not aware they wanted ANY security for Benghazi?

Do you mean to tell me that Biden isn't saying that they did not know?

Btw here is Politifact on that funding too......

When we checked with the Obama campaign, a spokeswoman said that the claim of a $300 million cut can be supported in either of two ways.

One -- which was noted by several fact-checkers in the aftermath of the debate -- is that Ryan, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put forward such severe cuts in his budget proposal that, running the numbers, embassy security funding would suffer a cut of $300 million.

The second was was to compare the relevant budget lines in the president’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget to the amount passed by the House of Representatives last year.

We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

Total: $2.64 billion

Cuts from Ryan’s proposed budget

The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget has run the numbers in the Ryan budget and argues that it will cut non-defense discretionary spending as a whole by 19 percent between 2013 and 2014. A 19 percent cut to a $2.64 billion line item works out to just over $500 million -- even more than the number Biden cited.

Leaving aside whether this percentage is accurate, using it in this context is problematic. First, it’s not an immediate cut -- according to OMB, the 19 percent cut would happen in the second year of Ryan’s budget, with the first year representing a 5 percent cut.

More importantly, as the Romney-Ryan campaign noted in an interview -- and as we have written in the past -- all of this is a speculative proposition. Ryan’s budget did not reduce federal expenditures across the board, and assuming that every item under Ryan’s budget would be cut equally isn’t the most accurate way to look at it. (That said, the lack of detail in Ryan’s plan has left the Romney-Ryan ticket open to such attacks.)

Cuts in spending already passed by Congress

Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

Total: $2.31 billion

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee......snip~

PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million

"Oh Yeah".....Next!

MMC said:

Because, we have Petraeus saying that he knew it was an Planned attack all along. That the CIA knew it was a Planned by Terrorists in the first place.

Click to expand...

No, what you have is Patraeus giving conflicting stories.....during his first testimony he said the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film. Just like Rice said.

From your link....

"...Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

But Mr King said the general's evidence on Friday conflicted with what he said at a hearing on 14 September.

Mr King said he had a "very different recollection" of the earlier hearing, at which lawmakers had been told the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film....."

BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'

Also those that attacked the Consulate the first two times are the same ones that went after the Brit's Ambassador in Libya.....as well as attacked the Red Cross Offices. Here is another clue.....the second time when they attacked the Consulate they blew a hole thru the Iron gates that use to be close off the entrance to the Embassy. They also left a Note on paper saying they would be back.

BBC News - David Petraeus: Benghazi attack 'was terror strike'

Click to expand...

I'm more interested in the terrorists motive for the attack than iron gates and holes. More specifically what was the extremist militants motive for the attack on the Special Mission Compound and the CIA annex? Do you know? If you do, then you know more than the FBI or the CIA.

Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

Gen Petraeus told the lawmakers that references to terror groups were removed from the final version of the administration's "talking points" on Benghazi, although he was not sure which federal agency deleted it.....snip~

Click to expand...

See above.

Alright Moot.....here is what I got. Now here is an interesting point, they blew a hole in the Iron gates. We in return took the Iron Gates Down. Do you think there is an actual excuse by Hillary and her team, for not putting up a new set of iron gates? Just to at least be able to close off the Entrance.

Click to expand...

I think the security of the embassies was and is the responsibility of the security team and not the diplomats or the bureaucrats in DC. The Secretary of State's job is to meet with foreign dignitaries and carry out the administrations foreign policy through diplomacy. It is not their job to micro-manage security details at 237 embassies all over the world or how thick walls should be or whether or not a gate was installed. There are professionals trained in security that hired to do that job.

Also Hicks and Nordstrom confirm that there was no protest or demonstration out in front of the Consulate. Now while the attack took place......that is not to say that some in Libya may have decided to join in.

Click to expand...

I never said or suggested there were protests or demonstrations out front of the compound. Didn't you understand a word I said?

It is my understanding that it was not a consulate or an embassy...instead it was a temporary outpost called a Special Mission Compound and thats why it didn't meet the security specifications for a permanent embassy location and why it was more vulnerable to attacks than a regular embassy.

Also we know Stevens was out on the street an Hour before the attack with the Turks Envoy.
We also were warned by the Libyans 3 days ahead of time that they thought Benghazi was to dangerous to conduct any kind of business.

Click to expand...

Stevens arrived the day before the attack and yes, it was dangerous in Benghazi and so thats why he didn't leave the compound. The day after he arrived he held several meetings inside the compound and then went outside to a restaurant for dinner with other foreign officials including some Libyans. His security may have been compromised at the restaurant. Then he came back and went to bed one hour before the attack. You really should read the ARB report or at least the link I provided.

Moot said:

No, what you have is Patraeus giving conflicting stories.....during his first testimony he said the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film. Just like Rice said.

I'm more interested in the terrorists motive for the attack than iron gates and holes. More specifically what was the extremist militants motive for the attack on the Special Mission Compound and the CIA annex? Do you know? If you do, then you know more than the FBI or the CIA.

Click to expand...

Looks like I know What both the FBI and CIA know already and did know.....huh? Lets take a look at what you are being told.



After initially saying the attack may have been spontaneous, US authorities now say it was a pre-planned strike. Libyan authorities have said militants probably used an anti-US protest as cover for the attack, and may have had help from inside the country's security services.

Here is the timeline of events that US officials believe led to the death of US ambassador Christopher Stevens, his state department colleague Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

10pm: Attackers open fire at the consulate, which has a main building and a smaller annex.

10.15pm: The assailants gain entry to the complex and the main building is engulfed in flames.

Many of those trapped inside escape but Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and a regional security guard remain.

The security guard manages to escape and returns shortly afterwards with others to try to rescue Mr Stevens and Mr Smith.

They find Mr Smith dead and pull him from the building, but no sign of Mr Stevens. They are driven from the building by thick black smoke, fire and gunfire.

10.45pm: Security staff try to retake the main building but come under heavy fire and retreat.

11.20pm: A second attempt to retake the main building is successful. Fighting moves to the annexe.

Midnight: Fighting at the annexe - reported to last about two hours - results in the deaths of two more Americans, later named by US authorities as former Navy Seals whose job was to protect the other staff.

1.15am: Mr Stevens arrives at a nearby hospital - it is not known who took him. A doctor there has told the BBC that he spent an hour trying to revive him, but that Mr Stevens died from smoke inhalation.

2.30am: Security forces regain control of the annexe.....snip~

BBC UK Timeline Benghazi timeline - Bing

Do you think the Libyans Government that really does not hold sway over Benghazi.....would know about the Attackers being part of the Security Forces to protect our people? Do you think in telling us what their Intel on it was that they would also address that fact?

Do you think they those telling our people 3 days ahead of time that it was to dangerous to conduct business? So lets see.....we have Petraeus and because King said from the First time Petraues testifies he didn't come away with the thought of Petraues clearly defining it was an attack over protests. Then we have the Libyans - Telling us that the Attackers are part of the Security force. That AQ is involved and that it is a planned attack?

Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.).

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. … t appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded. … What we don’t have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing.”.....snip~

Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”.....snip~

Benghazi Timeline

Seems even Yahoo and their time line has it down too. I think you should kind of read the whole time-line. See on the 19th Olsen also Admits they know. Different Dept than the CIA.

DO you think it is okay to believe the Libyans for one thing and then dismiss them On what went down for another? Oh and as to your statement on Diplomats and what they handle. What do the diplomats do when their Security people bring the problem directly to them. Like I showed with the Doc from the US Gov. Overcite Committee?

Oh and notice how Nuland said then it was okay to stand with what our Intelligence says. But now People want to question it.....huh?

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can be misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one document there — but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”

Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that “within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”.....snip~


Can anyone answer why Clinton says the Emails should be dismissed on one hand.....as she is saying one cant draw conclusions now.

Got answer as to why they used the Email then to Warn the Embassy in Tripoli that an attack may be pending and coming their way? Considering they had hear it the same way.



Libya does not have a proper, uniformed military anymore Instead, the State Department paid the "Libyan Militia" $150,000 to protect Ambassador Stevens, who is the representative of the United States President stationed abroad.

See page 170 to verify the details of the State Department funding foreign military in Libya to the tune of $150,000. Compare the same small number afforded local terrorist in Libya to the hundreds of millions afforded other foreign militaries in the region (like Lebanon's $100M where Hamas has power!), brought to them courtesy of the US taxpayer.....snip~

Do you think the State Dept was paying the Libyan enough for Security for Providing those services to protect our people.....do you think the Democrats we being kinda cheap with the money?

BTW.....if we gave the Libyans 25 Million in 2011 for Humanitarian Aid. Which would also include the Money for Security.

What happened to the other 24 and half million that we gave just in 2012? Above it stated we only gave Libya 150 THOUSAND. Any Ideas?

ABC News’ Luis Martinez (@LMartinezABC) reports: The cost of U.S. military intervention in Libya has cost American taxpayers an estimated $896 million through July 31, the Pentagon said today.

The price tag includes the amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation and humanitarian assistance for the Libyan people.

The U.S. has also promised $25 million in non-lethal aid to the Libyan Transitional National Council, half of which the Defense Department has already on MRE’s (military lingo for Meals, Ready to Eat).

The military delivered 120,000 Halal MRE’s to Benghazi in May and a second shipment that included medical supplies, boots, tents, uniforms, and personal protective gear in June.

One significant offset to the cost of U.S. involvement in the flights worth noting is the sale of military equipment to allies also involved in the cause. Pentagon officials say the sale of ammunition, replacement parts, fuel, and technical assistance to allies since March has totaled $221.9 million.....snip~

US Military Intervention in Libya Cost At Least $896 Million - ABC News

iacardsfan said:

Oh yeah and the NRA hasn't made a handful off of it too.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have if the left hadn't politicized it.

Remembering and thanking my Mother.

....................................:mothers_d:........................

American said:

They wouldn't have if the left hadn't politicized it.

Click to expand...

So is it acceptable to turn a blind eye? Were you expecting a: "Oh 20 kids and 6 adults were murdered at once , there are ways that we could avoid that in the future, let's not take any action and hope people change" ?

pbrauer said:

:shock: They caused the carnage? WOW!

Click to expand...

Yeah, remember Obama was supposed to make the world love us, but instead they hate us more than ever. And they did nothing even after repeated attempts from the embassy for more security. They caused it and did nothing to prevent it and to make matters worse while the attack was taking place they still did absolutely nothing. Obama and Hillery are quacks.

pbrauer said:

Now the Republicans are using the tragic death of four Americans to raise money.

Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

On a new fundraising page, the committee asks for donations to keep up the fight, declaring it a “coverup” and using pictures of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
The page implores supporters to “demand answers.”

Click to expand...

Yeah, when the opposition screws the pooch it tends to have a beneficial effect on fund raising by the opposition.

MMC said:

"Oh".....do you think there is an Active investigation going on in Libya trying to bring those to Justice?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Is there some reason why no one has been brought in for Questioning by us? Any reason why we don't have the Leader of Ansar Al Sharia in Custody?

Click to expand...

Because it's not the United States? I'm sorry, that was a silly statement you made here.

The difference it makes is to those who have fallen.....as well as any others working in government who have to rely on their government to come and get them out if harm comes their way. Do you think those that Actually Serve the Country should be able to.....at the very least trust their government some what partially. Do you think that is important going forward for all those that serve everywhere else too?

Click to expand...

I would think going forward, those who are currently serving are much more interested in our government making sure the failures of preparation which happened in Benghazi do not happen where they are stationed. My guess is those who are serving are far less concerned about e-mails and talking points and far more concerned with the security of their positions.

American said:

They wouldn't have if the left hadn't politicized it.

Click to expand...

Yes, they would have. The NRA delights in making people scared, because people who are scared buy more guns.

Born Free said:

Yeah, remember Obama was supposed to make the world love us, but instead they hate us more than ever.

Click to expand...

When the Benghazi attack happened, Libyans across the country showed their support for us.

Slyfox696 said:

Yes.

Because it's not the United States? I'm sorry, that was a silly statement you made here.

I would think going forward, those who are currently serving are much more interested in our government making sure the failures of preparation which happened in Benghazi do not happen where they are stationed. My guess is those who are serving are far less concerned about e-mails and talking points and far more concerned with the security of their positions.

When the Benghazi attack happened, Libyans across the country showed their support for us.

Click to expand...

On the active Investigation going on in Libya. :shock:

In Libya: Why the Benghazi Investigation Is Going Nowhere

Yet the political furor, which now threatens to hold up President Obama’s national-security nominations, stands in stark contrast to the response in Libya itself. There, Libyans say, the investigation is nonoperational, if not effectively dead, with witnesses too fearful to talk and key police officers targeted for violent retribution. “There is no Libyan investigation. No, no, no,” says Mohamed Buisier, a political activist in Benghazi, who returned home in 2011 after decades in the U.S. “There is not even a will to investigate anything. Even for us civilians, it is very dangerous if you talk about this subject.”

Whoever knows differently is for now not talking. And in fact, they might be dead or missing. Last week masked men surrounded the car of Benghazi’s chief of criminal investigations, Captain Abdelsalam al-Mahdawi, while he stopped at a traffic light and abducted him; he has not been seen since. His kidnapping came less than two months after Benghazi’s police chief, Faraj el-Drissi, was murdered in his Benghazi home and just weeks after armed men attempted to break into a jail in order to free the suspects in custody for el-Drissi’s murder.

Beset by criminality and awash with weapons, Benghazi is a dangerous place, and police officers like al-Mahdawi and el-Drissi had full dockets. But both men had the attack on the U.S. compound in common. “Any person who touches this file is disappearing into thin air,” says Rami el-Obeidi, a former intelligence chief for the rebels’ National Transitional Council during the 2011 revolution, who has attempted to probe the attack on his own time but has faced the frustrations of confusing and missing evidence. “Who’s leading the investigation now? No one. What’s the progress? Nothing,” he said by phone. “Anyone who has had a hand in the investigation has been killed or abducted or threatened.”

On the ground, however, Benghazi’s residents are slowly moving on and forgetting about the disastrous assault four months ago. The consulate building remains a burned-out ruin. And with al-Harzi out of jail in Tunisia, there is no suspect in custody for the attack. Buisier says the only thing that reminds people of the attack these days is the noise from above, apparently U.S. drones flying over eastern Libya’s main city as part of ramped-up security after the attack. Says he, “We wish they would be quieter.”

Read more: Benghazi Investigation Holding Up Obama, Going Nowhere in Libya | TIME.com

That should give you some insight into what is going on in Libya. Also you think it is a silly statement to ask why the leader of Ansar Al Sharia should be brought into custody or killed. Do you think it is okay for him to sit around in a 4 star hotel drinking frappes and mocking the US and the TNC? Talking about who really runs that part of Libya? Now what Help do you think the FBI will get in distributing pictures of AQ members that were seen in the compound from the Libyans? Especially since all that support has somewhere Up and Gone.

Yes and I asked you should the people serving know that they can trust their government when conducting operations? So if there is questions and concerns all around the world in such hot spots. They can be assured their country is coming for them. Did you think such would not be a morale issue?

The NRA has nothing to do with Benghazi and the Libyans nor Team Obama's investigation. So why deflect with it.

where were the neocons and their rage when our diplomats were attacked on the republican watch

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.

justabubba said:

where were the neocons and their rage when our diplomats were attacked on the republican watch

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.

Click to expand...

bubba...surely even you can see there is a big difference between suicide attacks and an 8-hour, pre-planned, all out attack on two American facilities with no support, no backup and no rescue efforts made by the Obama administration?

Mycroft said:

bubba...surely even you can see there is a big difference between suicide attacks and an 8-hour, pre-planned, all out attack on two American facilities with no support, no backup and no rescue efforts made by the Obama administration?

Click to expand...

Yup. The movie that will be made about the two ex-SEALs will have lots of lines about the brotherhood of arms and their confidence that their brothers are coming. Right up until they die. There's a Roland-at-the-bridge quality to this story.

Fisher said:

Yeah the democrats aren't raising a dime off a classroom of dead 6 year olds :roll:

Click to expand...

I gave you a "Like" on this one because there was no "Really Really Like" choice offered.

justabubba said:

where were the neocons and their rage when our diplomats were attacked on the republican watch

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.

Click to expand...

Really.....well then how can we let this go. Considering Under Bill Clinton we had the same Problem of with Securing an Embassy and it's Ambassador. Do you think all of those that make up for the 212 killed in Kenya and the 4000 thousand wounded? Did you forget Tanzania, Somalia? Blackhawk Down Ring a bell?

So under Democrats here we have a repeating mistake. Wherein Bill Clinton had his US Ambassador Step down. This is also DeJa Vu for Rice too. Who worked for noneother than Bill Clinton. So I think you can see that it isn't going to be let go.

For Susan Rice, Benghazi Was Kenya 1998 Deja Vu

Parallels: A mission was attacked after warnings, Americans were killed after security requests were denied, and a diplomat went on TV to explain it all — our current U.N. ambassador, after embassy bombings in 1998.

'What troubles me so much is the Benghazi attack in many ways echoes the attacks on both embassies in 1998, when Susan Rice was head of the African region for our State Department," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday after two hours with our U.N. ambassador. "In both cases, the ambassador begged for additional security."

In both cases, Susan Rice was involved more than she would like to admit.

In the spring of 1998, Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, sent an emotional letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begging for a more secure embassy in the face of mounting terrorist threats and a warning that she was the target of an assassination plot.

The State Department had repeatedly denied her request, citing a lack of money. But that kind of response, she wrote Albright, was "endangering the lives of embassy personnel."

A matter of months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were simultaneously attacked with car bombs. In Kenya, 12 American diplomats and more than 200 Africans were killed.

As in Benghazi, requests for more security were denied, warnings were issued, prior incidents were ignored and Susan Rice went on TV to explain it all.

Within 24 hours, Rice, then assistant secretary of state for African affairs, went on PBS as spokesperson for the administration — just as she was regarding Benghazi when she parroted the administration's false narrative on five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, that Benghazi was caused by a flash mob enraged by an Internet video. Then, as now, she worked for a Clinton.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: For Susan Rice, Benghazi Was Kenya 1998 Deja Vu; Tanzania Too - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

The funny thing is Rice repeated herself here, lock stock and barrel......and just like with Kenya. They said the Intel didn't know.....despite the CIA and others knowing of an AQ cell In Kenya? One would think certain people would learn from their first mistake. One would think it would be the Democrats.....who just keep on making the same Mistakes.

Yeah that's Right.....Kenya! Let me guess.....it's a mere coincidincy. :roll:

Mycroft said:

bubba...surely even you can see there is a big difference between suicide attacks and an 8-hour, pre-planned, all out attack on two American facilities with no support, no backup and no rescue efforts made by the Obama administration?

Click to expand...

AH ... your point raises yet another point that there's a big difference between "seeing" & "acknowledging" when dealing with the Obama deadenders.
And, btw, is it possible to refer to him as "justa" next time?
I have to say, calling him "Bubba" was a bit jarring.

CanadaJohn said:

How was my response baiting? Are you serious??

By that measure, every single thread this poster initiates is a violation because it twists the truth in order to bait responses.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Do NOT comment on moderation publicly.

pbrauer said:

Now the Republicans are using the tragic death of four Americans to raise money.

Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

On a new fundraising page, the committee asks for donations to keep up the fight, declaring it a “coverup” and using pictures of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
The page implores supporters to “demand answers.”

Click to expand...

Had the Democrats told the truth two months prior to the election about Benghazi, they would have lost.

Slyfox696 said:

Yes.

Because it's not the United States? I'm sorry, that was a silly statement you made here.

I would think going forward, those who are currently serving are much more interested in our government making sure the failures of preparation which happened in Benghazi do not happen where they are stationed. My guess is those who are serving are far less concerned about e-mails and talking points and far more concerned with the security of their positions.
Yes, they would have. The NRA delights in making people scared, because people who are scared buy more guns.
When the Benghazi attack happened, Libyans across the country showed their support for us.

Click to expand...

In the back of every Lib's "mind" lingers the question ..." Why couldn't those " demonstrators" just have finished the job " ?

Fenton said:

In the back of every Lib's "mind" lingers the question ..." Why couldn't those " demonstrators" just have finished the job " ?

Click to expand...

I'm curious... do you EVER say anything that is not an illogical gross overgeneralization?

Slyfox696 said:

And the people responsible for the deaths of the 4 adults very well could be as well. At the very least, you know they are being investigated and tracked.


Whoa whoa whoa, you're changing your story. In the first place, you want to blame the person who committed the deed, and in the second, you don't want to blame the person/persons who committed the deed but rather other people you feel contributed to the situation. Try to be consistent. Nobody in America killed those 4 adults, no more than Bushmaster killed those 20 children. If you're going to blame those who contributed to the situation, then I suggest you start leveling your ire towards the gun manufacturers also.
Exactly. What difference, at this point, does it make? How about we spend our time actually making a difference, instead of trying to score political points about something that happened 8 months ago?


In order to find common ground, Republicans need to squash two things: 1) the stupid tea party people and 2) the amount of money allowed to be spent on elections.

The Republican party is incredibly fractured right now, and that fracture is mostly responsible for the lack of common ground. You have stupid tea party people (and I want to clarify that believing in the ideals of the tea party is not necessarily stupid, I'm simply referring to the stupid people who ascribed to tea party concepts) who keep pushing increasingly radical solutions to problems ( which sometimes don't even exist) and refuse any possibility of compromise. You have moderate Republicans in between a rock and a hard place because they can't move right if they wish to get something done but can't move center if they want to win elections. And the only reason challenges from the right are so scary is because of the vast amounts of money which are allowed to flow unchecked into elections, even the primaries.

Until this get fixed, the common ground will not be found, regardless of who is in charge.

Click to expand...

As far as money spent on elections, it would take a constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS ruling that money is speech pretty well opened the flood gates to billion dollar presidential campaigns. It will only get worse from here. I agree also on the Tea Party, when they first came into being they were talking about the debt and deficit. Not a word about social issues. This was exactly what a follower of Perot and a member of the Reform Party could latch on to. But since then they became more interested in no new taxes and jumped into the social issue arena and have said or talked very little about the debt.

It is like the Tea Party has lost their reason for their beginning.